Contextualising Intangible Cultural Heritage in

Heritage Studies and Museology

Marilena Alivizatou

Contextualising Intangible Cultural Heritage

Contextualising Intangible Cultural

Heritage in Heritage Studies and
Museology
Marilena Alivizatou
Doctoral Candidate, University College London, UK

ABSTRACT
With this paper I make a proposal for the contextualisation
of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) in the interdisciplinary
field of heritage studies and museology, drawing on early
research conducted during my internship at UNESCO and
the first years of my doctorate. I examine emerging
conceptualisations of the term starting with the national
legislation of Japan and Korea in the 50s and 60s, and
more recently with the interventions of UNESCO. In
addition, I assess the development of ICH in terms of the
academic/intellectual discussions around the alternative
heritage discourse and the new museological discourse.
Finally, drawing on interviews with Professor Patrick
Boylan, Dr Richard Kurin and Mr Ralph Regenvanu,
conducted in 2006-2007, I draw some preliminary
conclusions as to the wider impact of ICH on heritage and
museum theory and practice. What emerges is a critical
examination of the diverse conceptualisations and
appropriations of ICH, and of its potential to constitute a
new heritage discourse at the interface of universalism
and particularism

Introduction
The concept of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) is
probably not only the most recent, but also the most
popular, of the latest additions to the heritage lexicon.
A great wealth of conferences, symposia, seminars and

publications has been dedicated to the subject1;

something that demonstrates its relevance to specialists
from all sorts of disciplines, from archaeologists and
anthropologists to legal experts and natural scientists.
While this new interdisciplinary field of study and practice

44

is gaining more and more momentum around the world,

there seems to be a lack of a substantial body of holistic
approaches theorising the concept and anticipating its
broader intellectual and operational implications in the
areas of heritage studies and museology.
Much of the research on ICH has been concerned
with the activities of the United Nations Educational
Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), one of the
major international cultural brokers that in 2003 adopted
the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural
Heritage. Inspired by this, the 2004 General Conference of
the International Council of Museums (ICOM) in Seoul
provided the floor for the museum professionals of
diverse specialities to engage with the subject. Many of
the contributions to that conference were published in
the first volumes of IJIH and provided practical examples
and case studies of how museums and cultural
institutions around the world interpret and operate vis-avis ICH. Against the backdrop of a more practical
framework, this paper makes an effort to approach ICH
critically, and to situate it in contemporary academic
discussions in heritage and museum studies. The main
research questions are: How has ICH emerged
internationally and with what moral/ethical implications What is its place in the cultural heritage arena with
respect to the alternative heritage discourse (Butler
2006) and the new museological discourse (Kreps 2003)?
Initially, I rehearse key stages in the emergence of the
concept within official UNESCO memory-work. I trace the
intellectual development of ICH through the interventions
of UNESCO that are entrenched in Japanese and Korean
heritage conceptualisations. The aim is to tease out some
of the early theoretical underpinnings of ICH related to the
UNESCO paradox: the organisations call to reconcile

cultural relativism and global ethics (Eriksen 2001) that

has often been compared to salvage ethnography
(Alivizatou 2007). I then juxtapose these institutional
approaches to ICH with more recent discussions taking
place in the field of heritage studies and museology. The
key theoretical models used are Butlers alternative
heritage discourse (2006) and Kreps new museological
discourse (2003). Here, ICH is analysed in the light of
current academic/intellectual frameworks in order to bring
in a more critical perspective to its theoretical
conceptualisation. Finally, the examination of these
theoretical underpinnings is followed by an assessment of
the impact of ICH on traditional museum and cultural
heritage institution roles. I venture to do this through a
brief presentation of the opinions of three key actors, Prof.
Patrick Boylan of City University, Dr Richard Kurin of the
Smithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage and
Mr Ralph Regenvanu of the Vanuatu Cultural Centre, as
recorded in interviews conducted in Leicester, Washington
DC and Paris in 2006 and 2007. What emerges is a critical
and multifaceted examination of the different
conceptualisations of ICH and their interconnections.

Part 1: ICH and UNESCO Memory-Work

Although the first country to request the
establishment of legal and administrative measures
concerning ICH from UNESCO was Bolivia, in 1973, there
is little doubt that the main source of inspiration and
guidance for the organisations engagement with ICH was
the legislation developed in Japan and Korea in the 1950s
and 1960s. The 1950 Law for the Protection of Cultural
Properties in Japan along with the protection of tangible
heritage in the form of movable and immovable
monuments, sites and works of art made a particular
reference to the protection of intangible cultural

Vol.03 2008 International Journal of Intangible Heritage 45

Contextualising Intangible Cultural Heritage

properties that were threatened by the post-Second

World War westernisation of the country (Saito 2005: 3).
A similar law that made special provisions for the
protection of ICH under the title Cultural Heritage
Protection Act was passed by the Republic of Koreas
government in 1962 (Yim 2004: 11). In this respect, living
traditional culture, and the knowledge and skills
associated with it, were acknowledged as a constituent
element of national heritage and identity, and therefore
subject to preservation for future generations.
Underlying the philosophy and rationale of the
Japanese and Korean legislation on the protection of
cultural heritage, is the idea that the national heritage not
only consists of monuments, objects and sites, but also of
living cultural expressions. These expressions that have
been maintained through the past and into the present,
are threatened by modernity and, consequently, state
intervention is required in order to ensure their
safeguarding and continuation. In this context, in 1966 the
National Theatre was founded in Japan for the
preservation and promotion of the countrys traditional
performing arts of Nogaku, Bunraku and Kabuki (Saito
2005: 6). Clearly, then, one of the characteristics of the
conceptualisation of ICH as developed in Japan and Korea
was not only its significance in terms of defining national
and cultural identity, but also its fragile nature and the
threat from modern ways of life. These approaches to the
protection of ICH echo strongly in UNESCO programmes
and activities developed in the 1990s. One such example is
the Living Human Treasures Programme established in
1993 and inspired by Japanese state programmes for the
continuation of traditional skills.
With respect to UNESCOs involvement with ICH, the
terms that were initially used in the institutional glossary
were traditional culture and folklore. In 1989 UNESCO
adopted the Recommendation for the Protection of
Traditional Culture and Folklore, the aim of which was to
sensitise governments towards the threats posed to
traditional culture. However, the 1989 Recommendation
was not successful in influencing the activities of
Member States (Aikawa 2004: 140). Among the reasons
for this was the terminology employed. More precisely,
the term folklore, that was invariably used alongside
the term traditional culture, was considered as having
pejorative connotations for many non-European
UNESCO Member States (Seeger 2001) and as being

reminiscent of colonial thought and domination.

Moreover, it was regarded as superficial because it
focused on the result of the social process, rather than
on the cultural or social activity that produced it (McCann
et al. 2001). In this sense, the Recommendation was
criticised for being focused on the product rather that
the producer (Aikawa 2004: 140).
During the 1999 Conference on the Safeguarding of
Traditional Cultures organised by UNESCO in
collaboration with the Smithsonian Center for Folklife
and Cultural Heritage in Washington, the weaknesses of
the 1989 Recommendation were underlined, as was the
need for a more holistic and dynamic definition of the
subject matter. In addition, it was argued that UNESCO
should not only focus on the archiving and documentation
of cultural expressions, but primarily on gaining the
support of local communities so that they can sustain
cultural practices (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2004: 58).
Subsequent consultations on the subject of the
definition of ICH, such as the Turin Round Table in March
2001, the Expert Meeting in Rio de Janeiro in January
2002 and the publication of the 2002 Glossary on ICH,
revealed the breadth of the area covered by the term in
different geographical and cultural contexts, its relation
to the tangible heritage, as well as the need to stress the
importance of the people that create and sustain cultural
expressions (van Zanten 2004). The end product of the
above-mentioned meetings was the expanded definition
of ICH in the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of
Intangible Cultural Heritage, whereby,

-- intangible cultural heritage means the

practices, representations, expressions,
knowledge, skills - as well as the instruments,
objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated
therewith - that communities, groups and, in
some cases, individuals recognize as part of their
cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage,
transmitted from generation to generation is
constantly recreated by communities and groups
in response to their environment, their interaction
with nature and their history, and provides them
with a sense of identity and continuity, thus
promoting respect for cultural diversity and
human creativity. It is manifested inter alia in the
following domains:

46

a. oral traditions and expressions, including language

as a vehicle of intangible heritage;
b. performing arts;
c. social practices, rituals and festive events;

raises a set of questions as to whether the ICH discourse

is rooted in an understanding of culture as tradition in
need of protection, or in an understanding of culture as
dynamic and continuously evolving.

d. knowledge and practices concerning nature and

the universe;
e. traditional craftsmanship (UNESCO 2003 2
1).

UNESCOs adoption of the 2003 Convention has been

heralded as an event of great significance (Matsura 2004:
4; Bouchenaki 2004: 6) for the international
understanding of cultural heritage. While according to the
1972 World Heritage Convention, the definition of cultural
heritage included primarily monuments, groups of
buildings and sites, as well as natural sites as
demonstrative of natural heritage, the new definition of
ICH reveals a shift from static and monumental to
dynamic and living understandings of heritage. The
Head of the Intangible Heritage Section has
acknowledged that the 2003 Convention is a sister legal
document to the 1972 World Heritage Convention
(Smeets 2004: 39). However, the existence of two
separate instruments for the protection and safeguarding
of cultural heritage reveals the institutional dichotomy
between the Tangible/World Heritage and the Intangible
Heritage Section. While efforts within UNESCO have
taken place in order to provide for more integrated
approaches towards tangible and intangible heritage, like
the Yamato Declaration (UNESCO 2004), the distance
between the two - even within the physical space of the
Parisian UNESCO Headquarters - is still quite big.

Influences and Concerns

The broader way in which UNESCO has
conceptualised and operated vis--vis ICH can be
assessed in the light of the organisations wider stance in
the field of Culture. In this sense, the ICH discourse has
emerged within the sphere of UNESCOs strategic
planning in the field of Cultural Diversity2. As such, the
international organisation is faced with the paradoxical
challenge of reconciling its universalistic vision, rooted in
the respect and protection of human rights, with the
particularities and plurality of the worlds different
cultures. While this contradiction has been assessed
critically by anthropologists3, what remains to be seen is
how ICH balances between cultural relativism and
global ethics as a new heritage discourse. This, then,

So far, what emerges from the above is that ICH has

been conceptualised in Japanese, Korean and UNESCO
legislation primarily as an aspect of cultural heritage
that, due to its living and evanescent nature, is in need
of safeguarding from modernisation and globalisation. In
this sense, UNESCO programmes and activities are often
compared to salvage ethnography, a popular practice
among early 20th century ethnographers who claimed
that traditional cultures would disappear with the advent
of Western civilisation and that it was their moral duty to
preserve them (Penny 2002); ideas that today are hotly
challenged by native groups celebrating the dynamism
and continuity of their culture (Hendrix 2005).
Inherent in salvage ethnography and more generally,
in the idea of safeguarding, are the notions of fixity and
fossilisation. In this sense, fears have been expressed
that the adoption of measures for the protection of living
cultural expressions may possibly hinder their further
development and make them less relevant to
contemporary communities. Despite the
acknowledgement by UNESCO that ICH is in constant
change and evolution, the institutionalisation of living
culture through state programmes, archives and
recordings could possibly freeze it in space and time. In
order to counteract such a scenario, during the 1999
Smithsonian Conference the opinion of James Early that
there is no folklore without the folk was recognised as an
important step in dealing with ICH in the future. The
participation of practising communities in the
safeguarding processes has thus been acknowledged as
a fundamental principle for UNESCO activities, and a way
for ensuring the viability of living heritage.
A further characteristic of the UNESCO
conceptualisation of ICH is an institutional separation and
dichotomy between tangible and intangible heritage.
Although the interconnectedness between the two terms
is highlighted in the 2003 Conventions definition of ICH,
there is a lack of a broad vision regarding a more holistic
approach to cultural heritage. This leads to an
institutional compartmentalisation and polarisation,
whereby tangible stands for dead or monumental

Vol.03 2008 International Journal of Intangible Heritage 47

Contextualising Intangible Cultural Heritage

civilisations, and intangible for living cultures. Clearly,

then, it seems that within UNESCO, ICH discourse and
programming reveal a conservationist approach to
culture that needs to be safeguarded out of fear that it
will disappear.

Part 2: ICH and the Anthropologisation of

the Heritage Debate
The emergence of ICH within the operational grounds
of UNESCO in the 1990s demonstrates an understanding
of cultural heritage that is based on an anthropological
approach to the notion of culture (Bouchenaki 2004;
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2004). As such, it seems to emerge
in tandem with the academic/intellectual call for
anthropologising and humanising the heritage debate
(Butler 2006; Rowlands 2002).

rather it exists in living people, in their bodies and minds,

through memory. To support this argument FeeleyHarnik refers to non-Western approaches of
experiencing the past, such as the weeping bird sound
word songs of Kaluli funerals and gisalo ceremonies that
evoke images of landscapes, paths and places through
which living people reconnect with their ancestors in
seen and unseen worlds (1996: 215-216).
Moreover, the memorial approach is related to the
interpretation of cultural objects. For example, Suzanne
Kuechlers research on the New Ireland funerary effigies,
known as malanggan, reveals that these objects, by being
abandoned in the forest or exchanged
effect remembering in an active and continuously
emerging sense as they disappear from view (2002:
7). Almost as if their materiality is not as important

Such calls became stronger after the publication of

David Lowenthals book The Past is a Foreign Country
and the ensuing debate (Ingold 1996: 201-245) that
brought an anthropological perspective to the
understanding of cultural heritage that was chiefly
dominated at the time by the mainstream Western
heritage canon embodied in the historical approach
(Ingold 1996: 202). Butler uses this debate in order to
further explore the anthropological or memorial
approach to notions of cultural heritage and experiencing
the past, and thus to provide alternative approaches to
the Eurocentric understanding of heritage (2006). As
such, the concept of ICH is offered as an alternative
conceptualisation of culture and in opposition to the
preoccupation of the West with the preservation and
conservation of the material traces of the past. In other
words, by being constantly recreated by groups and
communities (UNESCO 2003), ICH seems to attest that
the past is a renewable resource (Holtorf 2001). As a
consequence, it emerges as an alternative discourse to
the preoccupation of the Eurocentric heritage norm
which is constructed on the values of authenticity, and the
irreparability of cultural heritage.
In this sense, ICH is related to the alternative
heritage discourse or the memorial approach (Ingold
1996: 202) that acknowledges the importance of
memory, oral transmission and performance as ways
for experiencing and comprehending the past. According
to this perspective, the past is not a foreign country, but

for their creators, as their ability to represent named

images that define their access to the past as a vision
for the future (ibid.).

Clearly, then, the durability of the object is less

important than its performance during the ritual
ceremony, and its renewing potential in terms of
remembering the past in the future. As such, the
materiality and the performance of the object are
inseparable.
Within the memorial heritage discourse, therefore,
ICH expressed through memory, performance and
oral culture seems to support alternative ways for
interacting with the past. Departing from the Western
preoccupation with the conservation and preservation of
the material heritage for future generations, it introduces
the idea of living heritage. As such, it does not envision
cultural heritage as a dead relic of the past, but as a
corpus of processes and practices that are constantly
recreated and renewed by present generations effecting
a connection with the past. A shift can be observed from
the preoccupation with the object to an increased
interest in the person. Therefore, in answering the
question of what constitutes heritage and heritage value,
ICH would favour transformation over authenticity, and
renewal over conservation.
Discussions around the need to humanise cultural
heritage can also be traced in the world of museums.

48

Andr Malrauxs Muse Imaginaire first published in

1947, was one of the first works to acknowledge how
individuals appropriate museums and museum
collections. The emergence of the New Museology in
the UK (Vergo 1990) and the Nouvelle Musologie in
France (Riviere 1989) in the 1980s and 1990s further
questioned the traditional role of museums by
acknowledging their occasionally exclusive character,
and underlining the need for more people-centred
museum practice. This shift of museums towards
people has also been connected to the concept of the
ecomuseum (Davis 1999; Poulot 2006). Developed in
France in the 1970s, ecomuseums aimed at relating
people to their environment, cultivating their cultural
identity, conserving their heritage and instigating local
concern for sustainable development (Fernandez de
Paz, 2003: 39). Prof. Boylan has observed how ICH can
find fertile ground in ecomuseums, since they are not
primarily concerned with objects, but with cultural
environments (2006a: 57).
Inspired by the new museology and ecomuseums,
alternative museum concepts such as the postmuseum (Hooper-Greenhill 2000) and the poetic
museum (Spalding 2002) emerged at the dawn of the
21st century as a substitute for the classic or
modernist museum. While the first one is concerned,
among other things, with the memories, songs and
cultural traditions related to artefacts (Hooper-Greenhill
2000), the latter is concerned with drawing out the
profounder, more elusive meanings of museum
collections (Spalding 2002: 9). In this sense, both
museum concepts are concerned with exploring and
bringing out the intangible dimensions of objects;
elements that are not embodied in material form. This
will to move beyond the material properties of artefacts
reveals the potential of ICH to offer new approaches in
understanding and interpreting collections.
Christina Kreps has further explored the possibilities
offered by ICH in museology through the new museological
discourse (2003: 145) and alternative modes of museum
curatorship (2005). As such, she uses ICH to refer to
traditional knowledge concerning the conservation and
preservation of objects that constitute peoples cultural
heritage. She also acknowledges that indigenous curation
as an expression of ICH constitutes a bottom-up,
participatory approach to heritage preservation that invites

museums to become stewards and curators of intangible,

living and dynamic culture (2005: 7).
Drawing on the above, it becomes evident that there
are discernible differences between the
conceptualisations of ICH by institutional and
academic/intellectual heritage discourses. While within
UNESCO there is a dichotomy between tangible and
intangible heritage, according to the
academic/intellectual discourse objects, spaces and
human expressions are regarded as interconnected and
interdependent. Moreover, while the UNESCO discourse
demonstrates a conservationist approach to culture,
academic/intellectual discussions acknowledge a variety
of hybrid and diverse modes of cultural transmission not
necessarily confined in traditional frameworks.

Part 3: ICH as a New Conceptual Framework

for Heritage Studies and Museology
While in the previous parts I examined the broad
theoretical context of the emergence of ICH within the
institutional discourse of UNESCO and
academic/intellectual discussions, in this last part, I
expound the opinions of three men who have starred in
the ICH debate over the last years: Prof. Patrick Boylan,
Dr Richard Kurin and Mr Ralph Regenvanu.
I met Prof. Boylan in October 2006 at Leicester
Museum. His involvement with UNESCO, ICOM and the
international heritage scene dates back several decades;
this is the reason why his comments on the emergence of
ICH were of particular significance for my research. Prof
Boylan claimed that there is nothing particularly new
about the ICH discourse as such (2006/10) referring to
early 20th century cases of collecting songs, hymns and
dances by different individuals, such as the Reverend
Sabine Baring-Gould, Cecil Sharp and Vaughan Williams
in the UK, and Bela Bartok in Hungary. He added that the
reason why it has come to the fore now is that UNESCO
has been trying to complete the portfolio Cultural
Protection (2006/10), making special reference to the key
role of UNESCOs Secretary General Koitchiro Matsuura
and the Japanese Trust Fund for Intangible Heritage.
However, he remarked that during the ICOM General
Conference in Seoul in 2004 many of the ICOM
Committees found that there was something on ICH that
could relate to their work (2006/10). In this sense, he
acknowledged that the Conference was a wake up call to

Vol.03 2008 International Journal of Intangible Heritage 49

Contextualising Intangible Cultural Heritage

the museum community as to the tremendous potential

of ICH for museum work (2006/10).
Dr Richard Kurin is the Director of the Smithsonian
Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage (Folklife Center)
in Washington DC. Our meeting took place in his office at
the Centers new headquarters at LEnfant Plaza. Dr
Kurin described very eloquently the dynamics of the
collaboration between UNESCO and the Folklife Center,
by highlighting that this partnership provided not only a
lot of thinking around ICH, but also legitimacy and
prestige (2007/05). He also attributed the abstention of
the US from the 2003 Convention to the fear by the
Pattern and Trade Office that intellectual property rights
would go down a slippery slope (2007/05). Concerning the
ICOM 2004 General Conference he commented that most
of the talks and speeches in Seoul were almost
cheerleady! (2007/05), adding that dealing with ICH is
going to be hard work for museums (2007/05). According
to him, it is not about conserving and exhibiting artefacts,
but an act of social engineering (2007/05), meaning that
museums need to look beyond their walls and into the
communities that they are trying to represent.
Mr Ralph Regenvanu, the former Director of the
Vanuatu Cultural Centre, answered my questions
during his visit to Paris in May 2007. One of the first
things that he remarked with respect to the emergence
of ICH was that it reflected the concerns of the nonEuropean world (2007/05) as opposed to the previous
UNESCO Conventions that were informed by the
Western historical tradition (2007/05). As such, he
acknowledged the broad concept of ICH as inclusive of
objects, monuments, cultural or natural sites and
related the emergence of ICH to a postcolonial turn for
UNESCO. As far as museums and heritage institutions
are concerned, he remarked that for museums to
engage with ICH, this requires a complete and total
transformation (2007/05). Talking about European
museums he confessed that I do not hold hope that
they can deal with ICH adding that they have so much
colonial baggage that it is going to be very hard for
them to move on and transform all that (2007/05). As
opposed to that, he referred to the practice of Pacific
museums that are dealing with ICH by becoming
cultural centres (2007/05).
Summing up these interviews, several key themes
emerge relating to the potential of ICH to constitute a

new conceptual framework for cultural heritage and

museum studies. Firstly, all the interviewees underlined
the inclusive nature of the concept. It is not focused on
single items, such as a musical performance or a song,
but on broader processes. In this sense, Mr Regenvanu
observed that we should not speak of ICH simply as
cultural expressions or traditional knowledge, but as a
process, a lived, evolving interaction (2007/05). In the
same tone, Dr Kurin remarked that ICH should not be
treated in isolation, because it is not just about art and
crafts, but it is really about peoples lives (2007/05),
adding that Australian Aboriginal knowledge of the land
has to do with Australian Aboriginal land rights. It is not
just a custom; it has to do with their lives (2007/05). Prof
Boylans observation that you cant really separate
tangible and intangible heritage (2006/10) alludes not only
to the inseparability of the material and the immaterial in
terms of conceptualising the notion of cultural heritage,
but also to the more complex understanding of cultural
heritage that informs peoples identities.
A second theme emerging from the interviews was
the engagement of communities as a defining element of
the conceptualisation of ICH. A consensus prevailed
among the interviewees that state involvement could lead
to the formalisation and the bureaucratisation of ICH
and the subsequent alienation of the communities. Prof.
Boylan observed how UNESCOs narrow view on
authenticity (2006/10) could make communities become
disaffected. In this sense, Mr Regenvanu quite
provokingly remarked:
If the community who is the bearer and practitioner of
a tradition decides to alter the tradition for the
purpose of making money, is that a distortion? Or
maybe is the intervention of museums, UNESCO or
anthropologists saying that they cant do that the real
distortion? (2007/05).

In this context, Dr Kurins opinion that culture is not

preserved because someone put it in a museum or an
archive; it is preserved because it lives in the society; it is
real and it is living (2007/05) reveals how intimately
related are the concept of ICH and the broader sociopolitical context in which it exists.
This leads to the third theme emerging from the
interviews and concerning the impact of ICH on museum

50

work. Dr Kurins call for museums to become enmeshed

in social engineering indicates new roles and directions
for doing cultural representation (2007/05). He claimed
that the uncritical way in which ICH was endorsed and
celebrated in ICOMs 2004 General Conference revealed
the failure of museum professionals to distinguish the
challenges stemming from their involvement with ICH.
According to him, dealing with ICH is not about
preserving artefacts in storerooms, but helping people
continue their culture (2007/05). Mr Regenvanu talking
about the inabilities of Western museums to deal with
ICH commented that ICH is tied to place, resources and
obviously communities and communities do not live in
these museums (2007/05). As an alternative he referred
to the practice of the Vanuatu Cultural Centre that is out
in the community and concerned not only with collecting
and recording different aspects of living culture, but also
with informing and educating ni-Vanuatu about the
benefits of sustainable development and the need to
combine traditional and Western knowledge. Along
similar lines, Prof. Boylan acknowledged that ICH
suggests new roles for museums not only in terms of
collecting living culture and contextualising collections,
but also with respect to treating real contemporary-like
issues (2006/10).

Conclusions
With the above in mind, several conclusions can be
drawn relating to the intellectual and operational
challenges raised by the examination of the
appropriations of ICH and its potential to constitute a new
heritage discourse. The assessment of the different
approaches reveals the contradictions embedded in its
broader conceptualisation: on the one hand, it is
regarded as something fragile and endangered and on
the other as something in constant change and evolution.

through more integrated tangible/intangible heritage

projects and operational frameworks.
Alternatively, within the recent academic/intellectual
discourses that I rehearsed in part two, ICH seems to
obtain a more expanded significance. It emerges as a
process in constant evolution that cannot be frozen, nor
separated from its context, the latest being aspects of
both material culture like the malanggan mentioned
earlier, and of living culture. In terms of contemporary
museological approaches, ICH has been related to the
idea of indigenous curation, in other words to the
inclusion of traditional knowledge systems in museum
work, such as the conservation and interpretation of
collections. Therefore, ICH is not envisioned as a category
of cultural heritage that is endangered and as such, in
need of safeguarding, but rather as an intellectual
framework from which new roles for heritage institutions
and museums can be envisaged.
These new roles and directions for museums and
heritage institutions were also underlined in part three,
via the brief presentation of the perspectives of Prof.
Boylan, Dr Kurin and Mr Regenvanu. Although all of the
interviewees agreed that dealing with ICH would involve
new directions and fundamental changes in how
museums perceive their role in society, it was agreed that
it could also signify a new period in museum work by
opening up to communities. As such, the idea of the
museum as a palace for collections is substituted for
the idea of the museum as a dynamic cultural centre
(West 2007). The implementation of the new roles for
museums as social engineers requires a fundamentally
different museological approach, focused not only on
artefacts, but also on people. For this reason, in an
earlier paper on the impact of the 2003 Convention on
museum training, Prof. Boylan acknowledged that
the initiative will require museum personnel to

In part one, within the official UNESCO memorywork, ICH emerged initially as a euphemism for the
pejorative and parochial term folklore. However,
following the broader definition adopted in the 2003
Convention after consultations with academics and
communities and making reference to cultural objects
and spaces, it came to encompass a lot more than what
traditionally would be considered as folklore.
Interestingly, the adoption of the new, inclusive
terminology by UNESCO still remains to be implemented

possess new and different knowledge, skills and

attitudes, just as its corollary, staff training and
professional development offerings and programmes,
will be obliged to revise their contents and
methodologies (2006a: 63).

What remains to be seen is, on what terms ICH will

evolve as a new heritage discourse; in other words, which
elements of its conceptualisation will prevail: tradition or
change, relativism or universalism. From the above, it

Vol.03 2008 International Journal of Intangible Heritage 51

Contextualising Intangible Cultural Heritage

becomes clear that while UNESCO is trying to balance

the two within the ethical sphere of universal human
rights, the intellectual/academic world is interested in the
more hybrid, contested and changing components of
living culture that are often at the margins of the
UNESCO governmental policies. Although it is still too
soon to tell whether this new ecumenical discourse on
ICH will effect any change, the interest with which
museums around the world approach it and endeavour to
incorporate it into their practice reveals their willingness
to identify and undertake new roles and responsibilities
vis--vis the curation of living culture. In this sense, it is
quite possible that as the cultural heritage discourse has
been significantly enriched by the concept of ICH in terms
of providing a more inclusive and people-oriented
understanding of conceptualising the past, so can the
world of museums potentially benefit from this new
approach with respect to establishing profound and longlasting relations with extra-museum communities and
making cultural representations reflecting not only
artefacts, but real people and their lives.

52

NOTES
1. For example, in 2006 the Museum Ethnographers Group Annual Conference on Feeling the
Vibes: Dealing with Intangible Heritage, the 7th Annual Heritage Symposium at the University
of Cambridge on Tangible - Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Sustainable Dichotomy?, in 20062007 the seminar series organised in Paris by the Laboratoire DAnthropologie et DHistoire
de lInstitution de la Culture (LAHIC) on Intangible Cultural Heritage and different
publications, such as: Deacon, H., Dondolo, L., Mrubata, M. and Prosalendis, S. 2004, The
Subtle Power of Intangible Heritage: Legal and Financial Instruments for Safeguarding
Intangible Heritage. Cape Town: HSRC Publishers. Jade, M. 2006, Patrimoine Immateriel:
Perspectives dInterpretation du Concept de Patrimoine. Paris : LHarmattan.
2. Among other activities the adoption of the 2001 Universal Declaration on the Protection of
Cultural Diversity and the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity
of Cultural Expressions.
3. For example, see the critique by Thomas Hylland Eriksen of the report on Our Creative Diversity.

LIST OF INTERVIEWS
Boylan, P. 2006. Interview conducted by the author on October 7th, at the Leicester Museum

and Gallery.
Kurin, R. 2007. Interview conducted by the author on May 18th, at the Center for Folklife and
Cultural Heritage, Washington.
Regenvanu, R. 2007. Interview conducted by Ana Maria Stan on May 21st, at UNESCO
Headquarters, Paris.

REFERENCES
Aikawa, N. 2004, An Historical Overview of the Preparation of the UNESCO International

Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Museum International,
pp.221-222, 137-149.
Alivizatou, M. 2007, The UNESCO Programme for the Proclamation of Masterpieces of the
Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity: A Critical Examination, Journal of Museum
Ethnography pp.19, 34-42.
Bouchenaki, M. 2004, Editorial, Museum International pp.221-222, 6-10.
Boylan, P. 2006a, The Intangible Heritage: A Challenge for Museums and Museum
Professional Training, International Journal of Intangible Heritage 1, pp.54-65.
Butler, B. 2006, Heritage and the Present Past, in Tilley, C., Keane, W., Kuechler-Fogden, S.
and Rowlands, M. (eds) Handbook of Material Culture, London: Sage Publications, pp.463-479.
Davis, P, 1999, Ecomuseums: A Sense of Place, London; New York: Leicester University Press.
Eriksen, T. H. 2001, Between Universalism and Relativism: A Critique of the UNESCO
Concept of Culture, in Cowen, J.K., Dembour, M.B. and Wilson, R. (eds) Culture and Rights:
Anthropological Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.127-148.
Feeley-Harnik, G. 1996, Against the Motion in Ingold, T (ed) Key Debates in Anthropology
(Debate: Is the Past a Foreign Country?) London, Routledge, pp.201-248.
Fernandez de Paz, E. 2003, La Museologia Antropologica Ayer y Hoy, Cuadernos Tecnicos:
Antropologia y Patrimonio: Investigacion, Documentacion e Intervencion 10, pp.30-47.
Hendrix, J. 2005, Reclaiming Culture, Oxford, Palgrave.
Holtorf, C. 2001, Is the Past a non-Renewable Resource? in Layton, R., Stone, P. and Thomas,
J. (eds) Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. London, Routledge, pp.286-295.

Vol.03 2008 International Journal of Intangible Heritage 53

Contextualising Intangible Cultural Heritage

Hooper-Greenhill, E. 2000, Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture, London, Routledge.
Ingold, T (ed). 1996, Key Debates in Anthropology (Debate: Is the Past a Foreign Country?)

London, Routledge, pp.201-248.

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. 2004, Intangible Heritage as a Metacultural Production, Museum
International, pp.221-222, 52-65.
Kreps, C. 2003. Liberating Culture: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Museums, Curation and
Heritage Preservation. London; New York: Routledge.
Kreps, C. 2005, Indigenous Curation as Intangible Heritage: Thoughts on the Relevance of
the 2003 UNESCO Convention, Theorizing Cultural Heritage 1 (2), pp.3-8.
Kuechler, S. 2002, Malanggan: Art, Memory and Sacrifice, Oxford, Berg.
Matsura, K. 2004, Preface, Museum International, pp.221-222, 4-5.
McCann, A., Early, J., Horowitz, A., Kurin, R., Prosterman, L., Seeger, A., Seitel, P. 2001, The
1989 Recommendation Ten Years On: Towards a Critical Analysis, in Seitel, P. (ed)
Safeguarding Traditional Cultures: A Global Assessment, Washington: UNESCO; Smithsonian
Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage, pp.57-61.
Penny, G. H. 2002, Objects of Culture: Ethnology and Ethnographic Museums in Imperial
Germany, Chapel Hill; London, The University of North Carolina Press.
Poulot, D. 2005, Musee et Museologie, Paris, La Decouverte.
Riviere, G. H. 1989, La Museologie selon George-Henri Riviere : Cours de Museologie/ Textes
et Temoignages, Paris , Dunod.
Rowlands, M. 2002, Heritage and Cultural Property, in Buchli, V. (ed) The Material Culture
Reader, Oxford, New York, Berg Publications, pp.105-114.
Saito, H. 2005, Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Japan, in Sub-regional Experts
Meeting in Asia on Intangible Cultural Heritage: Safeguarding and Inventory Making
Methodologies, Bangkok, Thailand, December 13-15, pp.1-14.
http://www.accu.or.jp/ich/en/pdf/c2005subreg_Jpn2.pdf [Accessed on 3 Dec 2006]
Seeger, A. 2001, Summary Report on Regional Seminars, in Seitel, P (ed) Safeguarding
Traditional Cultures: A Global Assessment, Washington, UNESCO, Smithsonian Center for
Folklife and Cultural Heritage, 36-41.
Smeets, R. 2004, On the Background, the Interpretation and the Implementation of the
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, in Promotion of
Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage: Final Report of the 2004 ACCU Regional Meeting
in Asia and the Pacific, Osaka, Japan, 26 February-1 March, 2004, Osaka, Japanese National
Commission for UNESCO, Asia/Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU), pp.37-48.
Spalding, J. 2002, The Poetic Museum: Reviving Historic Collections, Prestel, Munich.
UNESCO 2003, Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001325/132530e.pdf [Accessed on 1 Dec 2003]
UNESCO 2004, Yamato Declaration on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible and
Intangible Heritage.
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/admin/file_download.php/Yamato_Declaration.pdf
[Accessed on 3 Dec 2006].
Van Zanten, W. 2004, Constructing New Terminology for Intangible Cultural Heritage,
Museum International pp.221-222, 36-44.
Vergo, P (ed), 1989, The New Museology, London, Reaktion Books.
West, R. 2007, Paper presented at the Symposium Memory and Universality:
New Challenges Facing Museums, UNESCO, Paris, 05 February 2007.
Yim, D. 2004, Living Human Treasures and the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage:
Experiences and Challenges, ICOM News 57 (4), pp.10-12.

54